You can't win, infidels!

[Lethalis]

On a serious note, Afghanistan. As the US fails to effectively tackle Pakistan's double faced policies, or the Afghan's double loyalties, it's now stuck somewhere between Obama wanting to withdraw and the Republicans... well... (also let's not pretend Romney isn't going to win the Rep. nomination)

Most (people in) European countries are getting sick of the mission as well. In Holland, the opposition party that our minority government needed because internationally renowned islamophobe Wilders rejoices in watching Muslims fight amongst each other without proper Western lives being lost, is losing a good number of votes and credibility because of their support of the Afghanistan mission, France is le most weary especially after losing no less than FOUR soldiers in one sneaky, unfair attack, etc. etc.

On the other hand, they did make a commitment to the people, especially the apparent minority of people who are willing to keep giving democracy a chance, school going women in particular as well as the people who've risked their life by choosing the side of NATO. Also, it'll affect the international standing of the US and Europe in a negative sorta way, never mind that leaving the place now might well mean that you're going to have to come back sooner or later once it has drawn the new generation of Bin Ladens over there.

So I guess what I'm asking for is solutions, preferably those not involving the words 'nu' and 'clear' in the same sentence.

[The Silly Dragon]

Terrorism will never truly die out as its fought under ground and you will always have those who wish to manipulate others for some 'holy' purpose or what not. The only people to solve this problem are themselves.

The majority of muslims disagree with the acts of terrorism and these people need to raise their voice and push the practice out. The same can be said with all religion as there is always some that want to follow their beliefs in a different way (different interpretations of the same book/s). Take Northern Ireland and the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics. Same religion in its bases but different ideals that turn to conflict due to a small number of indiviuals that want a conflict.

I am just a citizen i don't know what the plan is or the situation is out there, apart from the odd news report i hear. In my uneducated advice would be to just simply pull out little by little and let them sort it out (after all its their country). Which i belive is what we are doing anyways. If only a minority want democracy then through democracy they would lose the vote and stay in a dictatorship anyways. Also who are we to impose our ideals to others? Yes a freedom of speech should be a basic human right to all but if they don't want it should we force it on them? Same with sharia law. I don't want it imposed on me so why should i impose mine on them?

With the death of Osama there is a lose of a 'icon' for the lack of a better word for them to rally behind. Maybe this is why no big acts of terrorism has occured since?

The Olympics will be a prime target so if no attempt is made can we then say its gone or going? Terrorism that is.

All in all i say its not our place unless they attack then its a defense. Their Politics is their problem not ours unless it gets out of hand and civilians start being killed. The only reason there is still western troops there is because they want to secure the oil.

[CainTheHunter]

Some countries never learn historical lessons. Brits were first, IIRC, who got their arses handed to them by pushtuns. Then the USSR, now the coalition. The truth is, however, not about democracy, but about geopolitics and importance of having troops and established bases within the region just in case of...

[The Silly Dragon]

just in case of...

OIL!

[CainTheHunter]

just in case of...

OIL!

SUDDENLY in Afghanistan

[EricJ]

Minerals, actually.

[Allerion]

Some countries never learn historical lessons.

The US is terrible at learning from previous mistakes. Compare the Guilded age and the economic deficiencies of the CSA to what one certain group of.... idiots.... are currently pushing for, and have since Reagan.... As much fun as it is to watch the US repeat previously made mistakes, it really is frustrating

[Loflar]

Most (people in) European countries are getting sick of the mission as well.

For the record, I got sick of the mission right in the beginning.

On the other hand, they did make a commitment to the people, especially the apparent minority of people who are willing to keep giving democracy a chance, school going women in particular as well as the people who've risked their life by choosing the side of NATO. Also, it'll affect the international standing of the US and Europe in a negative sorta way, never mind that leaving the place now might well mean that you're going to have to come back sooner or later once it has drawn the new generation of Bin Ladens over there.

The problem is, that before making this commitment, in 70's, they did their best to destroy a system which allowed women to attend schools and could give democracy a chance. Just because the system was friendly to USSR. Apparently, at that time, thorn at the side of USSR was more important than democracy. (And there is a lot of other more important things, as we can see in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and, since US president claimed right to assasinate or indefinitely detain US citizens, USA.) I am not concerned about international standing of USA and Europe - they are already damaged anyway. And new terrorists are created by oppression. Oppression by foreign powers creates international terrorists. If we stay, new terrorists will continue to be born. If we leave, terrorists will not disappear, because nations and cultures have huge inertia. But it might get better in, say, two or three generations - when children of current children get old and wise and stop telling their grandchildren that foreigners are evil.

So I guess what I'm asking for is solutions, preferably those not involving the words 'nu' and 'clear' in the same sentence.

IMHO there is no good solution. What could, in my amateur opinion, possibly help (help Afghanis, not world powers), would be to split Afghanistan by tribal lines. Give Pashtoo part to Pakistan, Uzbek part to Uzbekistan etc. Get out all soldiers of other countries. Afghanis have long tradition of fighting invaders and every foreign soldier is an enemy by definition.

And above all, we have to finally admit, that no society is strong enough to reshape another society. Not by force and not in a few years. Probably not at all - ancient China was "educating" surrounding countries for centuries and their cultures, while influenced, are still not the same.

[Loki17]

Solution = Vote Ron Paul

[fireblade]

Yeah, I find it very funny though that it is said that Ron Paul's weak point is foreign policy, I think it's the part of his plans that makes the most sense.

On the other hand, the values the US&NATO are defending to me are very important, then we can ask, why don't they seem to realize that in the region? Is the message not clear? If I recall the last election, there was major voter fraud... No wonder then that the people view the Karzai government as just another one in a series of puppet-governments supported by foreign powers. And stuff like the marines urinating on corpses is ofcourse in no way helping.
Democracy isn't something you can impose by simply sending troops there, it's something that has to come from the people themselves. To achieve the goals set for afghanistan we would need a very long term commitment with a clear vision of what to achieve. But absence of that commitment or even absence of the appearance of the commitment is just encouraging the taliban to stick out, knowing we'll pull back eventually.

So either we stay there, all the way and do what must be done, or we leave afghanistan, and leave as fast as we can, because every day we're staying there without a full commitment is just simple waste of lives and money, to no real benefit imho.

[Rabidnid]

Democracy isn't something you can impose by simply sending troops there, it's something that has to come from the people themselves. To achieve the goals set for afghanistan we would need a very long term commitment with a clear vision of what to achieve. But absence of that commitment or even absence of the appearance of the commitment is just encouraging the taliban to stick out, knowing we'll pull back eventually.

Nothing can be achieved without making it in the interest of the people to change, and the change cannot be imposed from outside. How well would anybody in the US respond to a Afghan army setting up in the US, setting up a puppet Islamic government and then building religious schools everywhere so the boys can be segregated away in them and taught to be fundamentalist Muslims. The response would be exactly the same as in Afghanistan, widespread violent resistance.

[fireblade]

Exactly, so that's why you need a very long term commitment. What we need is a mentality change, if what we are doing is the right thing (as we assume), surely, they will see the advantage of what we bring.

Perhaps I worded it poorly, when I meant a long term commitment, I didn't mean a long term occupation, I meant achieving that mentality change, realising that it is the way to provide the most liberty and security, as well as prosperity for them. This cannot happen fast, this also is probably not going to happen with the current (afghan) regime, and with Pakistan apparently still supporting the Taliban as well.

But if we aren't willing to make the commitment, we should just get out altogether now, because it's simply a waste, and it's a steep price for no lasting gain to stay another year and leave an afghanistan in no better shape than it is now.

[Paraicj]

Why should the locals change their mentality at all? Thinking that the only problem is the length of commitment is missing a lot of the point. "Democracy" as the west knows it is not a universal panacea for social problems. Assuming that mediating, occupying or discussing the way into democracy will somehow solve this middle-eastern "problem" is just as poor an outlook as the original assault really.

[Lethalis]

The majority of muslims disagree with the acts of terrorism and these people need to raise their voice and push the practice out.

It's funny to see this right after you write 'terrorism will never really die out', and strikes me as somewhat hypocritical: do you think that in the majority of Muslim circles it is not already discouraged, that they are sort of apathetic on the issue? Moreover, when there is tacit support for what we'd call extremist organisations it's often because they sympathise with the people who have to live under barren conditions (the example of repressed Palestinians springs to mind) which in their eyes can only be changed by (para-)military action. One might say that the demand for the 'silent majority' to raise their voice is to acknowledge a very black and white version of events.

The same can be said with all religion as there is always some that want to follow their beliefs in a different way (different interpretations of the same book/s). Take Northern Ireland and the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics. Same religion in its bases but different ideals that turn to conflict due to a small number of indiviuals that want a conflict.

A good point, and might I add that religion in general, let alone Islam, is by far in the minority when talking about terrorism. Terrorism is very much a political tool and as such available to members of any political form of any ideology. Not to mention that the word can often be associated with people we'd otherwise call freedom fighters like, for instance, former Libyan rebels.

With the death of Osama there is a lose of a 'icon' for the lack of a better word for them to rally behind. Maybe this is why no big acts of terrorism has occured since?

Oh there've been plans for attacks - in some cases even encouraged and provoked by for example American authorities, so they could then arrest the person after letting the person go through with it - and they certainly have found people to rally around. That you haven't heard of them has I believe more to do with them preferring an air of secrecy, that they often work with aliases, the focus has shifted somewhat to the Middle East what with the recent uprisings and of course harsher security measures. As well as what I hope to be a continuing degree of incompetence (re: the underwear bomber).

Their Politics is their problem not ours unless it gets out of hand and civilians start being killed. The only reason there is still western troops there is because they want to secure the oil.

As EricJ mentioned the area is very rich in minerals. Also the report mentioned that once the Western forces were to leave (or, I imagine, become too few) then the Taliban would take over. For a taste of civilian casualties and general brutality under the Taliban regime, they've got something of a recent record that might be worth looking into. Considering war tends to radicalise involved parties, I doubt they'll have softened their stance.

Some countries never learn historical lessons. Brits were first, IIRC, who got their arses handed to them by pushtuns. Then the USSR, now the coalition. The truth is, however, not about democracy, but about geopolitics and importance of having troops and established bases within the region just in case of...

Believe it or not but there actually have been forays into Afghanistan before the English =P Also, I'm not sure how handy it is to have bases in the area; the NATO/US is all too quickly a common enemy in the region so in case of war against.... well let's say Iran, you might end up having to pour in a lot of extra resources just to keep the bases, supply lines and battlezones somewhat protected against the Afghans themselves. It seems like an awkward place and the only reason I think you'd want to hold on to it is that so no one else can benefit so much from those minerals, such as the Chinese for example.

Geopolitics, of course, becoming a nice word for colonialism.

The problem is, that before making this commitment, in 70's, they did their best to destroy a system which allowed women to attend schools and could give democracy a chance. Just because the system was friendly to USSR.

As I heard it, the West wasn't so much involved in the Soviet-Afghan war until a few years in, after they were convinced the Mujahideen could stand up to the Red Army. Also, with Afghanistan having a king first who got replaced by some communist regimes I'm not sure how well that qualifies as giving democracy a chance. But yes, they were better with women's rights - a trade off for their anti-religious policies, as it were.

I am not concerned about international standing of USA and Europe - they are already damaged anyway.

I can't imagine that they weren't damaged at some point - but then there are degrees of damage, and one's military reputation has been and is a part of what kind of influence you can be in the political processes across the region. You may not be personally concerned with it, but it is a factor if for no other reason that other people, who are involved in these processes, do think it's a factor.

But it might get better in, say, two or three generations - when children of current children get old and wise and stop telling their grandchildren that foreigners are evil.

Can you imagine the candidates running on the slogan "vote for me, and we'll pull out of Afghanistan and within a mere number of decades, they'll no longer terrorise us!" =P

Oh wait that's Ron Paul isn't it?

IMHO there is no good solution. What could, in my amateur opinion, possibly help (help Afghanis, not world powers), would be to split Afghanistan by tribal lines. Give Pashtoo part to Pakistan, Uzbek part to Uzbekistan etc. Get out all soldiers of other countries. Afghanis have long tradition of fighting invaders and every foreign soldier is an enemy by definition.

So your solution for the fight between Afghans and foreign soldiers is give the country to other countries and claim that the Uzbeki, Pakistani etc. militaries are thus not foreigners? =D

Given that the Pashtun part of Afghanistan in the south is by far the most troublesome, and the Pakistani government is already sort of in a state of war with the Pakistani Taliban - giving rise to claims that the Pakistani government is helping the Afghan Taliban branch in exchange for them leaving Pakistan alone - how enthusiastic you think the Pakistanis would be if you dropped this on their lap?

And above all, we have to finally admit, that no society is strong enough to reshape another society. Not by force and not in a few years. Probably not at all - ancient China was "educating" surrounding countries for centuries and their cultures, while influenced, are still not the same.

I'm pretty sure that Chinese culture differs within Chinese borders, it's never exactly the same. If you look at Europe... look at all the different languages, customs, cultures, ethnicities, religions and what have you. There's still a significant degree of (mostly) peaceful cooperation. One doesn't have to aim for complete assimilation.

Solution = Vote Ron Paul

I thought we'd already established Romney is going to be the nominee, and barring some miracle he's going to fail against Obama. I appreciate your zeal but let's remain a little realistic =P

On the other hand, the values the US&NATO are defending to me are very important, then we can ask, why don't they seem to realize that in the region? Is the message not clear?

Why don't they realise that the values NATO is defending is very important to you? =P

How well would anybody in the US respond to a Afghan army setting up in the US, setting up a puppet Islamic government and then building religious schools everywhere so the boys can be segregated away in them and taught to be fundamentalist Muslims. The response would be exactly the same as in Afghanistan, widespread violent resistance.

Well that's pretty much Saudi Arabia in a nutshell, and the Americans have been pretty okay with that, by and large.

Why should the locals change their mentality at all? Thinking that the only problem is the length of commitment is missing a lot of the point. "Democracy" as the west knows it is not a universal panacea for social problems. Assuming that mediating, occupying or discussing the way into democracy will somehow solve this middle-eastern "problem" is just as poor an outlook as the original assault really.

Are you saying that Middle Eastern problems cannot be solved with mediation or democracy? Because there tends to be some of that in parts of the Middle East.

[Loki17]

Yes, I know he can't win. But I still need to hope, and I'll still be writing him in.

Also, the US doesn't necessarily need the bases in Afghanistan, it has bases all over the middle east. In fact, the largest Air Force base in the Middle East is in Kyrgyzstan, and all seems to be pretty peaceful around there, or so my brother is telling me.

[fireblade]

Why should the locals change their mentality at all? Thinking that the only problem is the length of commitment is missing a lot of the point. "Democracy" as the west knows it is not a universal panacea for social problems. Assuming that mediating, occupying or discussing the way into democracy will somehow solve this middle-eastern "problem" is just as poor an outlook as the original assault really.

I'm not in any way saying that the length of commitment is the only problem, all I'm saying is that it's a necessity to achieve any lasting effect. I'm also saying, as I think I've stated, that you can stay there for 20 more years, but if all you're doing is endorsing some corrupt puppet regime, and not giving any benefit to the people, then it's useless as well.

Well, in our democracy women don't get beheaded in a football stadium if I recall correctly, sure, it's far from perfect, but to quote winston churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".

What needs to be done is a whole series of things, going from cracking down insurgents, building economy, establishing a proper justice system, a transparant government, assuring individual liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. All these things aren't built in a day, and they most likely won't be there in 2013, when I hear Obama is going to pull his troops out.

Why don't they realise that the values NATO is defending is very important to you? =P

Yeah, I probably phrased myself a bit poorly here... My point is that they can't make a choice because they haven't experienced those values. You can even build a shool, say,'all women are allowed to come and study here', if they are forbidden by their family, or under great pressure from neighbours, friends, village elders or whatever, they're not going to show up. I mean, it's something that doesn't change very quickly, how long was it until even the western European countries evolved into the democracies they are now... I mean, France is currently in its Fifth Republic

[Loflar]

Their Politics is their problem not ours unless it gets out of hand and civilians start being killed. The only reason there is still western troops there is because they want to secure the oil.

As EricJ mentioned the area is very rich in minerals. Also the report mentioned that once the Western forces were to leave (or, I imagine, become too few) then the Taliban would take over. For a taste of civilian casualties and general brutality under the Taliban regime, they've got something of a recent record that might be worth looking into. Considering war tends to radicalise involved parties, I doubt they'll have softened their stance.

Which again shows how wrong was it to even start the war. Yes, Taliban is brutal, but the we should ask, why it gets the support it needs to govern the country, as it effectively did before US invasion. What if it is the only trustworthy party around, and people turn to it to restore law and order?

Why did Hezbollah win elections in Lebanon? Wasn't it because they actually cared for people?

And in my country, there is a neonazi party slowly gaining support in villages. Why? Well, they, unlike democratic parties, go to those villages and offer help.

The problem is, that before making this commitment, in 70's, they did their best to destroy a system which allowed women to attend schools and could give democracy a chance. Just because the system was friendly to USSR.

As I heard it, the West wasn't so much involved in the Soviet-Afghan war until a few years in, after they were convinced the Mujahideen could stand up to the Red Army. Also, with Afghanistan having a king first who got replaced by some communist regimes I'm not sure how well that qualifies as giving democracy a chance. But yes, they were better with women's rights - a trade off for their anti-religious policies, as it were.

I have read somewhere, that the coup to depose the pro-soviet government was US backed. Now I am looking at the Wikipedia article, which tells somewhat more complicated story, which however fails to explain, what was behind the marxist revolution in 1973. But as I see it, the marxist revolution was already beginning of destruction following (as it seems) period of quite reasonable government from 1953 to 1973. We might argue who was the moving force behind various coups, but it seems quite probable to me that it was a foreign force. And later, when soldiers came... Is there any difference, from Afghani point of view, between army of USSR and USA? They are all foreign soldiers, talking in funny incomprehensible languages and shooting around.

But it might get better in, say, two or three generations - when children of current children get old and wise and stop telling their grandchildren that foreigners are evil.

Can you imagine the candidates running on the slogan "vote for me, and we'll pull out of Afghanistan and within a mere number of decades, they'll no longer terrorise us!" =P

Oh wait that's Ron Paul isn't it?

This is not a political program, this is simply a way how things work. If Ron Paul says it, then he is simply more honest then other candidates.
However, I do not vote in US elections and therefore do not pay it much attention. It is just matter of who will represent US military-industrial complex, oil corporations and health insurance companies anyway.

IMHO there is no good solution. What could, in my amateur opinion, possibly help (help Afghanis, not world powers), would be to split Afghanistan by tribal lines. Give Pashtoo part to Pakistan, Uzbek part to Uzbekistan etc. Get out all soldiers of other countries. Afghanis have long tradition of fighting invaders and every foreign soldier is an enemy by definition.

So your solution for the fight between Afghans and foreign soldiers is give the country to other countries and claim that the Uzbeki, Pakistani etc. militaries are thus not foreigners? =D

Given that the Pashtun part of Afghanistan in the south is by far the most troublesome, and the Pakistani government is already sort of in a state of war with the Pakistani Taliban - giving rise to claims that the Pakistani government is helping the Afghan Taliban branch in exchange for them leaving Pakistan alone - how enthusiastic you think the Pakistanis would be if you dropped this on their lap?

The point is, that Pashtoo soldiers from Pakistan are probably not such foreigners for Pashtoo Afghanis. And according to what I have read, there is a war between Pakistani government and Afghan Taliban, but not so much between Pakistani army and Afghan Taliban. And with current split between governments of Pakistan and USA, the government might side with Pakistani army again. But yes, no one would be happy about troublesome region. But that brings a question if it is better to have that troublesome region under direct and transparent influence or just behind easily penetrable borders.

[Sulla1111]

Some countries never learn historical lessons. Brits were first, IIRC, who got their arses handed to them by pushtuns. Then the USSR, now the coalition. The truth is, however, not about democracy, but about geopolitics and importance of having troops and established bases within the region just in case of...

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again...

Imagine if the afghans 'learned historical lessons' from the Macedonian or Mongol invasion? I.e. give up because we're doomed... Seems pretty selective to only used failed invasions as examples. Or is the lesson that these modern nations failed to learn that massed slaughter of the indigenous population is the best way to ensure docile populations?

[Allerion]

Some countries never learn historical lessons. Brits were first, IIRC, who got their arses handed to them by pushtuns. Then the USSR, now the coalition. The truth is, however, not about democracy, but about geopolitics and importance of having troops and established bases within the region just in case of...

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again...

If youre going to try again, ffs, do something different.

[The Silly Dragon]

If youre going to try again, ffs, do something different.

+1

@Lethalis, what i was trying to say is that you will never beat terrorism through war and conflict as this only fuels it. To actually defeat it you need to erase it from the mindset or the culture of these people. Take gang violence (please note that i support immigration here and have no problem with other nationalities, its just an example) My grandparents say that they never had that kind of crime but since the introduction of so many different cultures here in England has made it flourish. Whats that saying about 3 people in a room and all have different opinions about each other?
You say that its politics and yes your right but they 'use' religion to brainwash people into doing their bidding.
As for oil(and or minerals), doesn't afganistan give the US etc an excuse to now try and fix 'all' of the middle east? Think with all the uprising there is and we already have troops nearby to 'lend a hand to the peace process and further the cause of democracy'. A 'since we're here and already spending money' attitude.

Do you all honestly think that with recession hit counties they will continue this mission if there wasn't something in it for us? Since when does any human do something for nothing? even helping an old woman across the street will make you feel good about yourself, does your governments do things for that warm and fuzzy feeling? NO! Profit is all a the weast cares about. Edit: This may make seem like a hippy or something i just wanted to say that i do support democracy and would hate to live in any other kind of goernment. Its just annoying that we all get force feeded a load of lies by our government.

Democracy is about the public voting in a government from a choice of opposing ones. Doesn't help when they all do the same and promise the same and will all break said promises (just look back at England's general election and where we are now and ask yourselve "so when are they going to put these promises into action?"). I support the right to vote but will continue not to until we get a government to stand up with some balls and take action not blame the past.

I for one am out of this debate though (should not have even started really). Its pointless unless the president reads these forums and will just eventually heat up and tempers will fly (in my experience on forums they almost always do). As my mother always said to me "it will all end in tears you know?" Sound advice.

Good luck though.

[Facade19]

The solution? There is none. It is that simple. The Theological-Political Problem is unsolvable. It is a tension inherent in existence. Was it there in primordial conscience? Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that it is prevalent and it will not retreat. It is perennial and there is, (un)fortunately, no possible means to cease its presence. What we maybe should learn is to deal with the tension in a more productive manner. But look towards the attitudes exuded all across the playing field. Hypocrisy. Maybe it is indeed time that the fire rises.

[Allerion]

what i was trying to say is that you will never beat terrorism through war and conflict as this only fuels it. To actually defeat it you need to erase it from the mindset or the culture of these people. Take gang violence (please note that i support immigration here and have no problem with other nationalities, its just an example) My grandparents say that they never had that kind of crime but since the introduction of so many different cultures here in England has made it flourish. Whats that saying about 3 people in a room and all have different opinions about each other?
You say that its politics and yes your right but they 'use' religion to brainwash people into doing their bidding.
As for oil(and or minerals), doesn't afganistan give the US etc an excuse to now try and fix 'all' of the middle east? Think with all the uprising there is and we already have troops nearby to 'lend a hand to the peace process and further the cause of democracy'. A 'since we're here and already spending money' attitude.

You can beat terrorism through war and conflict easily. you just have to be willing to do anything to subdue a people, regardless of what that takes. Look at wars in the middle ages. An occupied people did not rebel very often, because if they did, there was a very, very good chance they would be dead very, very soon. Now, if a member of the taliban wants to walk in the streets during the day time, there is literally 0% chance of a US soldier killing him, unless hes wearing ammo belts or something. Unless they actually catch him in an attack, hes going to be ok.

Gang violence is slightly different than a rebellion.

Do you all honestly think that with recession hit counties they will continue this mission if there wasn't something in it for us? Since when does any human do something for nothing? even helping an old woman across the street will make you feel good about yourself, does your governments do things for that warm and fuzzy feeling? NO! Profit is all a the weast cares about. Edit: This may make seem like a hippy or something i just wanted to say that i do support democracy and would hate to live in any other kind of goernment. Its just annoying that we all get force feeded a load of lies by our government.

You do know that none of us actually live in a democracy, right?

Democracy is about the public voting in a government from a choice of opposing ones. Doesn't help when they all do the same and promise the same and will all break said promises (just look back at England's general election and where we are now and ask yourselve "so when are they going to put these promises into action?"). I support the right to vote but will continue not to until we get a government to stand up with some balls and take action not blame the past.

Youre never going to vote, fyi.

I for one am out of this debate though (should not have even started really). Its pointless unless the president reads these forums and will just eventually heat up and tempers will fly (in my experience on forums they almost always do). As my mother always said to me "it will all end in tears you know?" Sound advice.

thats a pretty bad attitude to take toward something like this. Why even say anything at all about anything if in the long run, it really doesn't matter a whole lot? Anyway, I can garuntee you leth has had discussions with far more infuriating people than you. no offense, its just that there are some... stubborn... people around here.

Good luck though.

[Loflar]

You can beat terrorism through war and conflict easily. you just have to be willing to do anything to subdue a people, regardless of what that takes. Look at wars in the middle ages. An occupied people did not rebel very often, because if they did, there was a very, very good chance they would be dead very, very soon.

Well, two things.

First, occupation as we know it is quite a new practise. Maybe as old as national state? In middle ages, conquering a region usually meant, that local people had someone else to rule them, but important things did not change. I guess that it can be compared to change of president today. Not really reason for revolt. People usually revolted because of mistreatment or hunger. And yes, if they revolted and lost (not automatic at the time), penalties were harsh.

Second, the only way to beat terrorism (as in resistance of occupied people) by force is genocide of occupied population. Look at Germans in Russia in WW2. They tried almost anything (short of genocide - they needed the people for slave work) and they ended with a partisan army - read this.

[Allerion]

Well, two things.

First, occupation as we know it is quite a new practise. Maybe as old as national state? In middle ages, conquering a region usually meant, that local people had someone else to rule them, but important things did not change. I guess that it can be compared to change of president today. Not really reason for revolt. People usually revolted because of mistreatment or hunger. And yes, if they revolted and lost (not automatic at the time), penalties were harsh.

Second, the only way to beat terrorism (as in resistance of occupied people) by force is genocide of occupied population. Look at Germans in Russia in WW2. They tried almost anything (short of genocide - they needed the people for slave work) and they ended with a partisan army - read this.

yes, occupation as it currently is, is new. and I'm suggesting its not the best for the occupier, and the old way was preferable. Ok, so not EVERY revolt lost, but Im willing to estimate only 1/100 succeeded. Think about it. some peasents with pitchforks dont have much say vs... armor.

Hey, whatever works.

[NoOoDLe]

Yeaaah.. This is a flamewar/shitfight/stupid-discussion I can do without participating. But I sure like watching sparks fly.

*lurks*

[Loflar]

Ok, so not EVERY revolt lost, but Im willing to estimate only 1/100 succeeded. Think about it. some peasents with pitchforks dont have much say vs... armor.

The point is that regular army was also equipped with sort of pitchforks OK, they had (some) armour, better training and better leadership, and peasants had numerical superiority, support of their neighbours and knowledge of terrain (especially if that army in question were mercenaries). But we are drifting off topic.

On topic - occupying army will be defeated in a long term simply because the soldiers want to go home. I have recently read Macchiavelli's Prince, and he - in 15th century - also considered military bases a bad strategy for control of territory. He recommended to move there loyal settlers (as Israelis are doing). Because soldiers will be seen as enemies while settlers will be sooner or later seen as neighbours.

[Musashi]

If you aren't planning on staying, establish viable goals and have an exit strategy.

[The Silly Dragon]

thats a pretty bad attitude to take toward something like this. Why even say anything at all about anything if in the long run, it really doesn't matter a whole lot? Anyway, I can garuntee you leth has had discussions with far more infuriating people than you. no offense, its just that there are some... stubborn... people around here.

Good luck though.

[/quote]

No offense taken. Don't worry.
It was more of getting involved in something you don't really know too much about and finding yourself in deep water as the saying goes. I opted to stay out of the debate discussion or whatever you want to call it as like i said its just going to get...bitter...me thinks.
Take me an Englishman who believes that his own country doesn't even have a democracy as all politicians do the same things and lie through their teeth about it. 'Never trust a man/woman in a suit' thats what i say.
Now if there was a debate over religion i could easily get involved and love to vent out some anger issues...
Only joking!

Ah jesus i said i wasn't going to continue, forget about me.

[Lethalis]

Switching to devil's advocate mode for a bit:

Well, in our democracy women don't get beheaded in a football stadium if I recall correctly, sure, it's far from perfect, but to quote winston churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".

Part of democracy, however, is letting the people choose - and they'd then have the right to reject Churchill's quote (a man whose country tried invading them and still had colonies, at his time!) and democracy as well. Also, democracy itself offers no guarantees for protection against executions, whether in a football stadium or in a special booth. Unless you'd like to propose that the democratic countries of the world are more civilised for better location scouting?

What needs to be done is a whole series of things, going from cracking down insurgents, building economy, establishing a proper justice system, a transparant government, assuring individual liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. All these things aren't built in a day, and they most likely won't be there in 2013, when I hear Obama is going to pull his troops out.

Then again, there's no guarantee they will be there in 2113. Your suggestions make perfect sense in a Western context but in Afghanistan, they're contradictory. Cracking down on insurgents very much means limiting individual liberty and the freedoms associated with it, while transparancy in government, a Western (assuming that's what you mean with 'proper'?) justice system and giving individuals several rights that are obvious for most of us will cause a huge uproar and will only strenghten public support for the Taliban who might be very strict but at least follow 'the right path', in the eyes of the Afghans. The Afghans are very good in building up their economy, but it is largely depending on the drugs and weapons trade, which NATO collectively dismisses as viable sources of income (the Taliban interestingly have given up on their fight to stem the drug trade and now participate in it, securing them good amounts of monies).

Yes, Taliban is brutal, but the we should ask, why it gets the support it needs to govern the country, as it effectively did before US invasion. What if it is the only trustworthy party around, and people turn to it to restore law and order?

The other side of the story is that when the US started to infiltrate Afghanistan just after 9/11, there already was a full civil war going on led by the warlords of the northern parts, who also had substantial public support and where the Taliban allegedly is easier to subdue.

Is there any difference, from Afghani point of view, between army of USSR and USA? They are all foreign soldiers, talking in funny incomprehensible languages and shooting around.

Here in Holland, we were told with a sense of pride that our soldiers were somewhat popular over there because we apparently have a more lenient approach to fighting the Taliban, and that the locals appreciated it =P But still - yes, all foreigners, all occupying.

This is not a political program, this is simply a way how things work.

But it's also a political program. Politics in a democracy means that the program to run on is not about truth, but what people believe. The other candidates may well be convinced that pulling out means getting rid of the terrorists, but if the public doesn't like that OR if it's what Obama wants, then they of course have to say something else.

So while we're on the subject of why Afghans don't want democracy... =P

The point is, that Pashtoo soldiers from Pakistan are probably not such foreigners for Pashtoo Afghanis. And according to what I have read, there is a war between Pakistani government and Afghan Taliban, but not so much between Pakistani army and Afghan Taliban. And with current split between governments of Pakistan and USA, the government might side with Pakistani army again. But yes, no one would be happy about troublesome region. But that brings a question if it is better to have that troublesome region under direct and transparent influence or just behind easily penetrable borders.

Wait, which part of that solution would be responsible for transparent influence? I'm not sure if the Afghan Uzbeks etc. will suddenly drop their clan structure for the sake of a transparent government.

what i was trying to say is that you will never beat terrorism through war and conflict as this only fuels it. To actually defeat it you need to erase it from the mindset or the culture of these people

Ah but here's the thing: martyrdom is an intrinsic part of Islamic (and in fact, Abrahamic) theology, and has become part of the culture in many places. It's part of the way the religion grew up - constantly under attack - and part of the social justice message - if you're attacked by oppressive forces, it is a virtue to drive them off even/especially at the cost of your own life. And in this case... trying to impose individual freedoms can be viewed as oppressive. You may have seen how a substantial part of the Americans responded negatively because they experienced Obama's health care plans as something un-American being 'pushed down their throats' (through the democratic process). You mean to tell all those Afghans that essential parts of their way of life is unequivocally wrong, and the only way to impose it is through military force?

Trying to attack their culture is what the Russians tried and it will mobilise a lot of people very quickly to protest or fight against it.

You say that its politics and yes your right but they 'use' religion to brainwash people into doing their bidding.

Every sort of ideology is fit to use or abuse in order to mobilise fighters for any cause. The reason I'm hammering on ideology as opposed to religion is that people keep shouting that religion is the root of all war.

As for oil(and or minerals), doesn't afganistan give the US etc an excuse to now try and fix 'all' of the middle east? Think with all the uprising there is and we already have troops nearby to 'lend a hand to the peace process and further the cause of democracy'. A 'since we're here and already spending money' attitude.

The uprisings that are currently going on are far away from Afghanistan - the Americans would have to go through Iran to reach Syria, Yemen and the rest of the region.

I for one am out of this debate though (should not have even started really). Its pointless unless the president reads these forums and will just eventually heat up and tempers will fly (in my experience on forums they almost always do). As my mother always said to me "it will all end in tears you know?" Sound advice.

What Allerion said.

The solution? There is none.

Aww, that's no fun! Where's your creativity? =P

You do know that none of us actually live in a democracy, right?

B-b-b-but =(

On topic - occupying army will be defeated in a long term simply because the soldiers want to go home. I have recently read Macchiavelli's Prince, and he - in 15th century - also considered military bases a bad strategy for control of territory. He recommended to move there loyal settlers (as Israelis are doing). Because soldiers will be seen as enemies while settlers will be sooner or later seen as neighbours.

I know I'm risking something here but I don't think it's too controversial to say that Israel's settlers aren't exactly behaving like good neighbours - more like a mob or militia.

If you aren't planning on staying, establish viable goals and have an exit strategy.

In this case, what would you say are viable goals?

[Loflar]

Yes, Taliban is brutal, but the we should ask, why it gets the support it needs to govern the country, as it effectively did before US invasion. What if it is the only trustworthy party around, and people turn to it to restore law and order?

The other side of the story is that when the US started to infiltrate Afghanistan just after 9/11, there already was a full civil war going on led by the warlords of the northern parts, who also had substantial public support and where the Taliban allegedly is easier to subdue.

I don't know. I remember a report of our (strongly pro-american) TV news several months before September 2001, about heroic fight of Northern Alliance against religious fanatics (who, IIRC, toppled statue of Buddha). Which could suggest western support of Northern Alliance, possibly because it seemed to be secular and easier to deal with? This would mean that Taliban was not so much easier to subdue, but less likely ally against the other party.

This is not a political program, this is simply a way how things work.

But it's also a political program. Politics in a democracy means that the program to run on is not about truth, but what people believe. The other candidates may well be convinced that pulling out means getting rid of the terrorists, but if the public doesn't like that OR if it's what Obama wants, then they of course have to say something else.

OK, let's try some political statement. "It is inherent right right of every nation to choose its own path. Imposing our values on another culture, is only moral as long as we are willing to accept foreign values imposed on us. Because all people are born equal and it is preposterous to assume that people of one culture have right, or even qualification, to judge people of another culture and organize their way of life." Happy?

The point is, that Pashtoo soldiers from Pakistan are probably not such foreigners for Pashtoo Afghanis. And according to what I have read, there is a war between Pakistani government and Afghan Taliban, but not so much between Pakistani army and Afghan Taliban. And with current split between governments of Pakistan and USA, the government might side with Pakistani army again. But yes, no one would be happy about troublesome region. But that brings a question if it is better to have that troublesome region under direct and transparent influence or just behind easily penetrable borders.

Wait, which part of that solution would be responsible for transparent influence? I'm not sure if the Afghan Uzbeks etc. will suddenly drop their clan structure for the sake of a transparent government.

By transparent influence, I meant: "Hey, people. Your village is now part of Uzbekistan. If you have any troubles, you can turn to Uzbek government. If you cause any troubles, Uzbek goverment will deal with you." As opposed to: "Hey, people. You are now free Afghans. You can democratically choose your way of life, and the soldiers here will make sure that you do it correctly. Your choices will then be reviewed in Washington, and if considered wrong, you will have to choose again."

On topic - occupying army will be defeated in a long term simply because the soldiers want to go home. I have recently read Macchiavelli's Prince, and he - in 15th century - also considered military bases a bad strategy for control of territory. He recommended to move there loyal settlers (as Israelis are doing). Because soldiers will be seen as enemies while settlers will be sooner or later seen as neighbours.

I know I'm risking something here but I don't think it's too controversial to say that Israel's settlers aren't exactly behaving like good neighbours - more like a mob or militia.

That's why they are not seen as neigbours, but rather as an occupation force.